[IGFmaglist] Participation at IGF by MAG members

Renata Aquino Ribeiro raquino at gmail.com
Sat May 28 22:24:19 EDT 2016


Dear all

Agree w/ Jac on differentiating MAG members over-appearing (is there
such term?) in their personal capacity from organizations MAG members
are affiliated with and the amount of activites they organize.

Would also like to point out that, while this discussion is going on,
it is likely that some proposals may have been already prepared
following different ideas of amount of participation of MAG members.
These proposals should not be penalized but adjusted with an ask to
the organizers to adequate their speakers list according to whichever
MAG member appearance rule is approved in the end.

Best,

Renata




On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Appreciating this thread. I wasn't aware of the 3+1 rule, although got
> the understanding that MAG's role is really more backend - support,
> facilitate participation, helping in organising, getting info out, etc.
> And in fact, I thought MAG shouldnt speak/moderate at main sessions at
> all for reasons already shared. I think the 3+1 or 2+1 rule is a good
> one to have, and act more as an exception than a norm.
>
> Jst a clarification - as MAG members are often part of organisations,
> this shouldn't preclude orgs from proposing workshop sessions, but
> rather the SOI would serve to name which sessions their orgs are
> organising? E.g. speaking as being part of APC - which is both an org
> and a network with members mainly from developing contexts who are very
> active in their engagement of IGF - this would be an unfortunate outcome
> no? But I agree with not voting on sessions that are organised by the org.
>
> j
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Jac sm Kee
> Manager, Women's Rights Programme
> Association for Progressive Communications
> www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
> Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe
>
> On 26/05/2016 14:05, Franz, Liesyl I wrote:
>> Thanks, Flavio, for once again providing helpful analysis of the
>> discussion so far – in this case on the MAG participation role vis-à-vis
>> the Main Sessions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Virat and I will consolidate the comments so far and send another
>> version out for final approval based on the discussion.  Just a couple
>> observations/comments as we do that, as follow:
>>
>>
>>
>> First, we’ll aim for consistency regarding the organizer/facilitator
>> nomenclature about the MAG role…!
>>
>>
>>
>> Second, some the elements covered in Flavio’s outline below are well
>> covered in the guidelines on workshops, so those will not be covered in
>> the guidelines for Main Sessions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Third, I defer to the group regarding the 3+1 vs. 2+1 participation
>> “rule”, though noting that the main session guidelines only address
>> if/how they can participate in main sessions, so we need to come down on
>> the final for that piece for this purpose, including the form of making
>> dispensation for the MAG member participation in the main sessions,
>> whichever way we come down on it.  My own view is that it would be a
>> high burden for the chair or the Secretariat to make that decision and
>> it is something the MAG can do as part of its deliberation on main
>> session speakers, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Fourth, regarding item 1 below, I just wanted to weigh in and say that I
>> think there are ample ways to acknowledge the work of the MAG
>> organizers/facilitators  (as well as the organizing
>> committee/volunteers) for the main sessions in the session documents,
>> etc., and in the web links to the session, so I think that’s how it can
>> be covered – rather than printed, for example, in the program or on the
>> “front page” of the program on the webpage.   I think we can include
>> something to that effect in the consideration section of the guidelines
>> document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, we’ll send a new version out shortly, and thank you for all your
>> input.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Liesyl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
>>
>>
>> *From:*Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] *On Behalf
>> Of *Flávio Rech Wagner
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2016 8:48 AM
>> *To:* igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [IGFmaglist] Participation at IGF by MAG members
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>>
>> Trying to summarize the issues on which there seems to exist an
>> agreement, and highlighting differences between Peter and Marilyn positions:
>>
>> 1. We should recognize and publish the names of MAG members that play
>> the role of "organizers" of sessions of different types.
>>
>> 2. We do not accept MAG members organizing workshops.
>>
>> 3. If a MAG member coaches a workshop proposal, or if s/he is part of an
>> organization proposing a workshop, s/he must declare a conflict of
>> interest and refrain from reviewing / rating / voting on this proposal.
>>
>> 4. We adopt a 3+1 rule [/option: we adopt a 2+1 rule/], whereby MAG
>> members can appear in at most 3 (or 2) workshops / other types of
>> sessions and in at most 1 main session. Exemptions to this rule are
>> accepted in exceptional cases, which requires that the MAG member seeks
>> dispensation. The MAG chair [/option: the IGF Secretariat/] is entrusted
>> with making those decisions.
>>
>> 5. MAG members should not play the role of moderators of main sessions,
>> especially in the main sessions they are organizing / facilitating.
>>
>>
>> So we have two decisions to take:
>>
>> A) Rule for MAG members appearing at the microphone: 3+1 or 2+1.
>>
>> B) MAG chair or IGF Secretariat is entrusted with making a decision on
>> dispensation of MAG member from the rule above (3+1 or 2+1).
>>
>>
>> Did I miss something?
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Flavio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     My comments are in CAPS below.
>>
>>
>>
>>     M
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>     There seems to be agreement on a couple of issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>     1. We should more formally adopt the role and title of “organiser”
>>     for those MAG members who do all the hard work of getting a session
>>     off the ground. That includes workshops, Main sessions, posters, or
>>     any other format that we use. We should aim to publish the names of
>>     the “organising committee” as part of the programme. That will
>>     reflect credit where its due, and may also assist with the
>>     employer-funding visibility issue that seems well understood. It
>>     distinguishes that work and those workers from those people actually
>>     appearing at the microphone.
>>
>>
>>
>>     THIS SOUNDS VERY USEFUL BUT AGAIN, WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT MAG MEMBERS
>>     ORGANIZING WORKSHOPS, THAT WE THEN RATE AND APPROVE. I AGREE AS FAR
>>     AS THE MAIN SESSIONS ARE CONCERNED.
>>
>>
>>
>>     A MAG MEMBER THAT COACHES A WORKSHOP MAY NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES,
>>     AND A MAG MEMBER THAT IS PART OF AN ORGANIZATION, WHETHER CS OR NGO,
>>     OR TECHNICAL COMMUNITY, OR BIZ THAT IS DRIVING WORKSHOPS THOUGH
>>     THEIR OFFICIAL WORKING ROLE, SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM VOTING.
>>
>>     A MAG MEMBER THAT INFORMALLY COACHES THE ORIGINATION OF A WORKSHOP
>>     BUT HAS NOT AN ONGOING ROLE MAY STILL VOTE, IN MY VIEW.
>>
>>
>>
>>     AND, YES, THIS MAY BE A BIT OF SELF GOVERNANCE.
>>
>>
>>
>>     BUT MAG MEMBERS SHOULD NOT BE ORGANIZING WORKSHOPS AND THEN RATING THEM
>>
>>
>>
>>     2. There seems general agreement that MAG members should not be
>>     appearing at the microphone- or not much. Some are in favour of a
>>     ban, with an application for occasional dispensation. Others prefer
>>     something a bit less restrictive. My experience as a regulator
>>     suggests people actually do work better when there is a clear rule
>>     to follow. It can be published widely, form part of the induction
>>     process, and lessens confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>>     I AM NOT SO HARSH ABOUT A MAG MEMBER APPEARING AT THE MICROPHONE.
>>     THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM ASSUMING A MODERATOR ROLE OR CO MODERATOR
>>     ROLE, ESPECIALLY IN A SESSION THAT WAS ORGANIZED BY A LARGER GROUP
>>     OF MAG-ITES, OR MAG+.
>>
>>
>>
>>     I WAS NOT AWARE THAT YOU WERE EVER A REGULATOR, SO AM LOOKING
>>     FORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT THAT! JUST KIDDING. [HMM, CHAIR OF
>>     INTERNETNZ; AND THEN CHAIR OF ICANN, AND THEN... -- NO REGULATOR
>>     STUFF IN THAT LINE UP]
>>
>>
>>
>>     WE SHOULD NOT IGNORE THAT WE ARE EVOLVING AND THAT FRANKLY,
>>     SOMETIMES THERE MAY BE THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY.
>>
>>
>>
>>     3. Given that this is an evolutionary process, perhaps we can build
>>     on the success of the past use of the 3+1 concept. We already have a
>>     paper on Main Sessions that says MAG members can appear on one
>>     session. If we add the rider that this should not be a session that
>>     they are on the organising committee for, perhaps we can keep that.
>>
>>
>>
>>     I SUPPORT, AS LONG AS YOU SHOW SOME FLEXIBILITY THAT ALLOWS FOR AN
>>     EXEMPTION.
>>
>>
>>
>>     4. For Workshops and other formats, we could limit the number of
>>     speaking options to 2, again with the rider that these should not be
>>     sessions for which the MAG member is on the organising committee or
>>     is otherwise a sponsor.
>>
>>
>>
>>     I THINK THAT WE SHOULD STICK WITH 3. I DID NOT SEE THAT THERE WAS AN
>>     EMPIRICAL SURVEY THAT ASKED WHETHER THAT WORKED, AND WHEN IT WAS NOT
>>     ADHERED TO, AND BEFORE MOVING TO TWO, I ASK FOR THAT.  PERSONALLY, I
>>     FIND THAT TRYING TO LIMIT MYSELF TO ONLY TWO, THEN RESULTED IN A
>>     LATE INVITATION TO FILL IN AND MAKE SURE THAT A WORKSHOP WAS
>>     BALANCED, AND I DID NOT HAVE TO ASK FOR DISPENSATION, BUT COULD JUST
>>     'MAKE IT SO'.
>>
>>     BUT STAYED WITHIN THE RULE OF THREE.
>>
>>
>>
>>     5. Everyone is free to seek dispensation for when a special
>>     circumstance arises. I suggest the MAG Chair be entrusted with
>>     making those decisions. If they feel the need, they can consult with
>>     staff, form a committee etc according to the need.
>>
>>
>>
>>     I THINK THAT STICKING WITH THREE FREES THE MAG CHAIR FROM BEING TOO
>>     DEEP IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAM, AND IN FACT IF THIS IS
>>     SUPPORTED IT SHOULD BE THE SECRETARIAT, NOT THE MAG CHAIR.
>>
>>
>>
>>     In summary, we will enhance the visibility of the organising role,
>>     and lessen the speaking role to a narrow 2+1 format, with
>>     dispensation available if needed.
>>
>>
>>
>>     Does that have general support - or at least acceptance?
>>
>>
>>
>>     Further comments welcomed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 21/05/2016, at 8:00 pm, Wisdom Donkor <wisdom.dk at gmail.com
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>         Thank you Flavio, Marilyn, Virat, Petter and all for the
>>         clarification. I am now clear in my mind and for this reason i
>>         agree on all points, especially continuing the policy from 2015
>>         on MAG member participation.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Cheers
>>
>>
>>         *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)*
>>
>>         E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist
>>
>>         National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/
>>
>>         Ghana Open Data Initiative Project.
>>
>>         ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member,
>>
>>         Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member,
>>
>>         OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member
>>
>>         Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>         wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>         wisdom.dk at gmail.com
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>         Skype: wisdom_dk
>>
>>         facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
>>
>>         Website: www.nita.gov.gh
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://www.nita.gov.gh> / www.data.gov.gh
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://www.data.gov.gh>
>>
>>         www.isoc.gh
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://www.isoc.gh> / www.itag.org.gh
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://www.itag.org.gh>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Marilyn Cade
>>         <marilynscade at hotmail.com
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>         I was the originator of the initial discussion that led to
>>         creating the 3+1 as a standing agreement when I came in as a MAG
>>         member, and many other MAG members agreed. That is what led to
>>         the '3+1'.
>>
>>
>>
>>         I did this because as a non MAG member, I saw many workshops
>>         with MAG members submitting workshops, or using their affiliated
>>         entities to submit workshop proposals, and then having to select
>>         them and then being speakers, or moderators.  And the annual IGF
>>         was then  having the same co moderators over and over, year
>>         after year, for the main sessions.
>>
>>
>>
>>         We need to remember that IGF and MAG has been evolving and in
>>         perhaps earlier years, this overwhelming role of the MAG was
>>         well intentioned, and well meaning, and we were perhaps
>>         struggling to find speakers, and co moderators, who could get
>>         funding to attend.
>>
>>
>>
>>         However, in 2014, and 2015, we have made progress and in my
>>         personal view,
>>
>>         I think that the 3+1 remains realistic, and pragmatic, and does
>>         not penalize MAG members too much. I realize that we each, as
>>         MAG members are doing a tremendous amount of work. But I
>>         continue to insist that MAG members not submit workshop
>>         proposals, and I hope that those on the MAG with affiliations
>>         will do their best to only be coaches
>>
>>
>>
>>         I also understand the comment made about having to justify some
>>         kind of involvement if one is gaining support from a community,
>>         or an academic entity to spend the time necessary, but I think
>>         that we all need to realize and ensure support that MAG members
>>         are appointed by the UN SecGen and need to convince themselves,
>>         and their employer, whomever that is -- whether business,
>>         government, NGO/CS, or university -- that there is a need to be
>>         as independent as possible.
>>
>>
>>
>>         I still think that MAG's purpose is to coach, and help outreach
>>         to new speakers for both main sessions and workshops.
>>
>>
>>
>>         However, I am realistic that if we set an objective of no more
>>         than one main session as a speaker, or co moderator, this may be
>>         the most realistic, while sticking to the no workshops submitted
>>         by a MAG member.  I know that our job is really to encourage the
>>         development of workshops through reaching out to networks, but
>>         we can all commit to not rating workshops that we have direct
>>         relationships with, as a standard practice, and commit to the no
>>         more than one main session.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Look, this is more work, frankly, than doing it ourselves.
>>
>>
>>
>>         I realize that identifying and coaching is more work than being
>>         the experts we are, but we are on the MAG for only a short
>>         cycle, and the more we coach, and enrich participation, the more
>>         the IGF grows and is sustainable.
>>
>>
>>
>>         So, here's to the no more than 3 speaking roles on workshops and
>>         no more than 1 main session per MAG member. Even at that and
>>         here is the math:
>>
>>
>>
>>         50 MAG members X 3 is 150 workshops with MAG speakers
>>
>>         50 MAG members X 1 for main sessions could be 50 of the slots in
>>         whatever the number of the main sessions turns out to be: 6 or
>>         8: that would mean that if main sessions have 6-10 speakers, X 6
>>         so 60 at max, up to 50 speakers from MAG might be proposed. I
>>         know that we are not headed there, but we really should think
>>         about perhaps no more than 3-4 MAG members per main session, and
>>         showing cause why the MAG member is the best speaker,along the
>>         lines of the 'exception'.
>>
>>
>>
>>         I have proposed a SDG consultation main session and am following
>>         up on that, but consistent with the WSIS+10 session, which I was
>>         privileged to co organize with Brazil, Lea, and others, we
>>         invited different moderators and took the role of rapporteurs.
>>
>>
>>
>>         I am not suggesting that a MAG member is never the best
>>         moderator, or co facilitator, but I do urge that we as MAG
>>         members embrace the no more than 3 workshops [unless there is
>>         such fallout of a moderator or speaker at least minute that a
>>         MAG member is needed to support a workshop as an exception --
>>         that does happen and if we are not 'full up' on 3 then we can be
>>         the angel that supports a workshop when travel or other
>>         situations lead to gaps that might lead to cancellation of a
>>         workshop.
>>
>>
>>
>>         As I look ahead to the MAG after I leave it and that day will
>>         come soon, I am hoping that it is enriched by at least another
>>         25 per year active participants per stakeholder group that I can
>>         cheerfully say: the MAG enhanced diversity in gender, geo
>>         representation, and issue diversity, so that we have at least
>>         100 more experts each year who return to build on the IGF, both
>>         in our IGF annually, and also feed back into their national or
>>         sub regional or regional IGF.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>         From: virat.bhatia at intl.att.com
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>         To: barrister at chambers.gen.nz
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>;
>>         Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>         Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 21:20:29 +0530
>>         Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Participation at IGF by MAG members
>>
>>
>>
>>         Dear Members of the MAG,
>>
>>
>>
>>         Sent this out 2 hours ago, but some didn’t get it. My apologies
>>         if it is resend for anyone.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Regards,
>>         Virat Bhatia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         *From:* Bhatia, Virat
>>         *Sent:* Friday, May 20, 2016 7:08 PM
>>         *To:* 'Peter Dengate Thrush' <barrister at chambers.gen.nz
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>>;
>>         'MAG-public' <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>>
>>         *Subject:* RE: [IGFmaglist] Participation at IGF by MAG members
>>
>>
>>
>>         Dear Peter,
>>
>>         Many thanks for your email.
>>
>>         This is an important issue and we must try and close it at the
>>         earliest and with the best possible way forward.
>>
>>         Here is a brief description of the evolutionary perspective, and
>>         past discussions, followed by my submission on the issue.
>>
>>         *1.**      Discussion started in 2014*
>>
>>         * *
>>
>>         (i)      Before 2014 IGF in Istanbul, some MAG members (not all)
>>         served as speakers and/or moderators in main sessions and
>>         workshops. There was no rule limiting or preventing such
>>         participation. In 2014, during my first year in the MAG, the MAG
>>         imposed a self-restraint, ahead of Istanbul IGF for the first
>>         time.  Some of the reasons are already well documented in your
>>         mail.  Pros and cons were argued (as you have) and on the
>>         balance, the rule of “3+1” was agreed upon (maximum of 3
>>         workshops and 1 main session), where a MAG member could serve
>>         either as a speaker and/or as a moderator.
>>
>>
>>
>>         (ii)    In part, the complete ban could not be  imposed in 2014,
>>         because, by the time the discussion on limiting MAG members
>>         participation as speakers and / or moderators gained ground,
>>         several MAG members had already committed to serve as speakers
>>         on approved workshops for IGF 2014.  Since MAG members were
>>         already committed, they could not withdraw at the last minute,
>>         leaving workshop organizers in a lurch.
>>
>>
>>
>>         *2.**      In 2015*
>>
>>         * *
>>
>>         In 2015 the rule continued to remain, but it was generally
>>         understood that MAG members could serve as speakers and/or
>>         moderators at main sessions and workshops within the rule of
>>         3+1, but only as an exception. (E.g. no other candidate
>>         available to serve as moderator / speaker or last minute
>>         cancellation, etc.) At least that is how I understood the
>>         position and acted upon it.  Admittedly the rule may not have
>>         been followed in its letter and spirit in 2015.  However my
>>         impression is, that for the most part there was tremendous
>>         self-restraint shown by MAG members in 2015.
>>
>>         Several of us in the MAG who have been regular speakers and
>>         moderators, both for main sessions and workshops, have politely
>>         refused speaking opportunities, offered by workshop proposers
>>         and main session organizers in 2014 and 15.
>>
>>         *3.**      Now for 2016 ( my submission)*
>>
>>
>>
>>         For 2016, I would recommend that we go with option 3 that you
>>         have suggested:
>>
>>         “*A complete limit (ban) on MAG member involvement (probably
>>         with a let-out clause that would allow a MAG member to apply for
>>         dispensation in certain circumstance)*.”
>>
>>         If the MAG agrees, this can be implemented for both main
>>         sessions and workshops in 2016.
>>
>>         *Main sessions*:  Main session written proposals have not been
>>         finalized (perhaps not even written yet), so no MAG member
>>         stands committed as a speaker and / or moderator. Sufficient
>>         time for co-facilitators to find good alternatives between now
>>         and November 2016.
>>
>>         *Workshops*:  Since Workshop proposal evaluations have not begun
>>         yet, MAG members (if they agree) can recuse themselves, if a
>>         workshop proposer reaches out to them for serving as a moderator
>>         or speaker.
>>
>>         However, as option 3 (above) implies,  if there are unavoidable
>>         circumstances, where the MAG member in his wisdom decides, and
>>         the MAG agrees that an exception needs to be made, for either a
>>         main session or workshop, then the same can be allowed.
>>
>>         The above restraint (ban) is *only* for serving MAG members
>>         (during their tenure) as speakers and / or moderators at main
>>         sessions and workshops.    Once they rotate off the list, they
>>         can and must accept moderator /speaker roles for both main
>>         sessions and workshops.  In fact in some cases, they may be the
>>         best suited candidates
>>
>>         The restraint does not in any stop the MAG members from being
>>         co-facilitators or organizers of main sessions.  In fact quite
>>         the contrary.  The role of co-facilitators is completely
>>         different from that of moderators, as explained in the Working
>>         Group recommendations.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Again, opting for restraint is my personal preference, and
>>         submitted for MAG’s consideration. Invite MAG members to weigh in.
>>
>>         Regards,
>>
>>         Virat Bhatia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         -----Original Message-----
>>         From: Igfmaglist
>>         [http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]]
>>         On Behalf Of Peter Dengate Thrush
>>         Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 6:08 AM
>>         To: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>>
>>         Subject: [IGFmaglist] Participation at IGF by MAG members
>>
>>
>>
>>         Fellow MAG members,
>>         With apologies for the delay, I’d like to return to a topic
>>         raised in our call last month - the public participation in
>>         events at IGF meetings by MAG members.
>>
>>
>>
>>         It appears there was a time when MAG members played an active
>>         part in not only proposing sessions of various sorts at IGF
>>         meetings, but chairing/moderating, speaking ( on panels and
>>         other formats) and generally taking a very public role at IGF
>>         meetings.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Over time, it has seemed more appropriate for MAG members to
>>         play a lesser public role. The possibility of a conflict of
>>         interest in proposing sessions which MAG members are involved
>>         in, even if they personally refrain from evaluating their own
>>         proposals, is one obvious reason for a reduced role.
>>
>>
>>
>>         When I joined the MAG last year, there were various comments
>>         made to the effect that MAG members should not assume public
>>         roles, but should encourage, coach and facilitate new talent to
>>         emerge.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Last year, it appeared to me (entirely subjectively) that MAG
>>         members generally took a lower profile, but that was not
>>         uniform. Some MAG members appeared in a variety of public roles.
>>
>>
>>
>>         It seems to me we should have a discussion then come to a quick
>>         conclusion about the parameters of the public performance by MAG
>>         members.
>>
>>
>>
>>         The points on both sides of the issue are obvious: on the one
>>         hand MAG members are (typically) leaders in their communities,
>>         and have a good grasp of a wide range of topics, and serve well
>>         as speakers on topics they are familiar with, if not experts
>>         upon. One of the reasons for joining the MAG is to increase
>>         one’s involvement in these issues. For some if not many MAG
>>         members, active participation ( being in the published
>>         programme) is a pre-requisite for getting funding from employers
>>         or other parties. In other cases, it is the groups putting the
>>         sessions together that seek the participation of MAG members
>>         because of their high profile and expertise.
>>
>>
>>
>>         On the other hand, MAG members are leaders in their communities,
>>         and don’t need to increase their profiles. They could be using
>>         their positions to bring on new talent.The conflict of interest
>>         point extends across all formats - many worthwhile and
>>         interesting sessions are not approved for inclusion, and it
>>         weakens the IGF to have any appearance of favouritism. MAG
>>         members should do other things to enhance the profile of the IGF.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Doubtless there are more points, with many nuances around each one.
>>
>>
>>
>>         I suggest, for the purposes of the discussion that I now invite,
>>         that we consider three broad options;
>>
>>
>>
>>         (1) No Limits on MAG member involvement:
>>         (2) Some limit (TBD after debate, but probably along the lines
>>         of the “Rule of 3” some have cited ( as if it were a rule);
>>         (3) A complete limit (ban) on MAG member involvement ( probably
>>         with a let-out clause that would allow a MAG member to apply for
>>         dispensation in certain circumstance).
>>
>>
>>
>>         I look forward to some discussion on this, and then a move to
>>         closure.
>>         I note that the Main Sessions draft produced by that WG takes
>>         the position that all Main Sessions need to be facilitated by
>>         MAG members ( a continuation of the same position taken in the
>>         2015 paper.) I’d be interested in learning of the reasoning
>>         behind that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Igfmaglist mailing list
>>         Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>         http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist
>>         mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>         http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Igfmaglist mailing list
>>         Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>         <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>         http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing
>>     list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>     <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>     http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>
>>     Igfmaglist mailing list
>>
>>     Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>     <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>     http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner                 Tel: +55-51-3308 9494
>>
>> Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul  Fax: +55-51-3308 7308
>>
>> Instituto de Informática                 E-mail: flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
>> <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>> Porto Alegre, Brasil                     URL: www.inf.ufrgs.br/~flavio
>> <http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/%7Eflavio>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>




More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list